Re: Ready-to-use Docker images for KF6-based development ?

Hi, On Dienstag, 30. Januar 2024 12:53:32 CET Jonathan Riddell wrote: > *Sure, the Neon unstable one should be ready to go* > *invent-registry.kde.org/neon/docker-images/plasma:unstable > * a few days ago it was working today I

Ready-to-use Docker images for KF6-based development ?

Hi, I'm still running a Qt5/KF5-based setup on my machine. Is there a ready-to-use docker image/Dockerfile which I could use to work on a KF6-based application, maybe something from KDE neon ? Sorry for the maybe stupid question Alex

Re: Kandalf: request for review

On Dienstag, 19. Dezember 2023 08:31:56 CET Ingo Klöcker wrote: > On Montag, 18. Dezember 2023 23:30:57 CET jvap...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Montag, 18. Dezember 2023 22:27:43 CET Alexander Neundorf wrote: > > > A Kamel is a big, slow and un-funny animal, in german it's also not

Re: Kandalf: request for review

On Montag, 18. Dezember 2023 05:06:08 CET J. Varela wrote: > I like that. The k makes sense there. It also fits with the theme of the > target uses. Really ? A Kamel is a big, slow and un-funny animal, in german it's also not a compliment to call somebody a Kamel. Alex

Re: Cleaning up cdash.org integration, what to do, or any hidden usage still?

Hi, On Freitag, 2. September 2022 12:20:50 CEST Friedrich W. H. Kossebau wrote: > Hi, > > (cc: kde-devel for heads-up, please reply only to kde-core-devel). > > we stumbled over some CTestConfig.cmake files in some of the KDE git > repositories. Which seem to originate from a time where people

Re: New cmake warning.

On Dienstag, 3. Mai 2022 18:43:48 CEST Méven wrote: > Le mar. 3 mai 2022 à 18:25, Thomas Friedrichsmeier < > > thomas.friedrichsme...@kdemail.net> a écrit : > > On Tue, 3 May 2022 10:35:20 +0200 > > > > Méven wrote: > > > I am guessing you are using cmake >= 3.16 so it allows you to run, but >

Re: CI system maintainability

Hi, On 2019 M03 28, Thu 16:04:01 CET Boudhayan Gupta wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 at 15:21, Kevin Ottens wrote: > > Hello, > > > > On Thursday, 28 March 2019 14:33:59 CET laurent Montel wrote: > > > I am against to force mandatory review, as it will create a lot of lose > > > > of > >

Re: CI system maintainability

Hi, On 2019 M03 28, Thu 16:04:01 CET Boudhayan Gupta wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 at 15:21, Kevin Ottens wrote: > > Hello, > > > > On Thursday, 28 March 2019 14:33:59 CET laurent Montel wrote: > > > I am against to force mandatory review, as it will create a lot of lose > > > > of > >

Re: CI system maintainability

Hi, On 2019 M03 28, Thu 16:04:01 CET Boudhayan Gupta wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 at 15:21, Kevin Ottens wrote: > > Hello, > > > > On Thursday, 28 March 2019 14:33:59 CET laurent Montel wrote: > > > I am against to force mandatory review, as it will create a lot of lose > > > > of > >

Re: CI system maintainability

On 2019 M03 28, Thu 17:43:36 CET Friedrich W. H. Kossebau wrote: ... > Though I assume no-one is using it anyway, given there are so few bugs > reported ;) I use it whenever I need to look at a file "raw", and I can't remember having noticed bugs :-) Alex

D9394: Show "Search wrapped" message in center of view for better visibility

neundorf accepted this revision. neundorf added a comment. This revision is now accepted and ready to land. Definitely an improvement :-) REPOSITORY R39 KTextEditor BRANCH SearchMessages (branched from master) REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D9394 To: dhaumann, neundorf,

Re: liquidshell in kdereview

On 2017 M11 6, Mon 10:03:05 CET Tomaz Canabrava wrote: > On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 8:31 AM, Martin Koller wrote: ... > > Whoever does not like plasmashell, for whatever reason. > > My reasons are mentioned in the README or the announcement mail. > > Free software is about choice, no ?

Re: liquidshell in kdereview

On 2017 M11 6, Mon 19:13:36 CET Martin Koller wrote: > On Montag, 6. November 2017 10:03:05 CET Tomaz Canabrava wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 8:31 AM, Martin Koller wrote: > > > On Montag, 6. November 2017 01:57:32 CET Aleix Pol wrote: > > > > On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 9:30 PM,

Re: liquidshell in kdereview

On 2017 M11 5, Sun 19:27:27 CET Martin Koller wrote: > On Samstag, 4. November 2017 20:58:49 CET Alexander Neundorf wrote: > > On 2017 M11 3, Fri 21:30:19 CET Martin Koller wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > ... > > > > > - Just one bottom Deskto

Re: liquidshell in kdereview

On 2017 M11 3, Fri 21:30:19 CET Martin Koller wrote: > Hi all, ... > - Just one bottom DesktopPanel, containing: I always put my panel to the right or left edge (intead at the bottom)... ... > The main motivation was to have a reliable desktop shell which does not hog > the CPU or RAM. (CPU

Re: CI Requirements - Lessons Not Learnt?

On 2017 M01 18, Wed 19:59:46 CET Friedrich W. H. Kossebau wrote: .. > Given this is a policy affecting all of the KDE projects, please first > propose it officially in a separate own thread, with a proper subject. > Perhaps even on kde-community, as kde-core-devel might not be read by many, >

Re: CI Requirements - Lessons Not Learnt?

On 2017 M01 16, Mon 07:48:25 CET Martin Gräßlin wrote: > Am 2017-01-15 22:58, schrieb Alexander Neundorf: > > Hi Martin, > > > > just replying somewhere... > > > > On 2017 M01 15, Sun 14:52:30 CET Martin Gräßlin wrote: > >> I think that is a r

Re: CI Requirements - Lessons Not Learnt?

Hi Martin, just replying somewhere... On 2017 M01 15, Sun 14:52:30 CET Martin Gräßlin wrote: > I think that is a reasonable suggestion. If distros patch our > dependencies we need to consider this as a fork. And a fork should be > called a fork. It needs to be clear that KDE is not responsible

Re: CI Requirements - Lessons Not Learnt?

On 2017 M01 12, Thu 04:00:34 CET Kevin Kofler wrote: > Martin Gräßlin wrote: > > Email threads don't work to codify such requirements. What we need is > > something like an "announce new dependency to sysadmin freeze" prior to > > the dependency freeze in the release schedule. That's what I mean

Re: CI Requirements - Lessons Not Learnt?

On 2017 M01 6, Fri 17:20:08 CET Kevin Kofler wrote: > PS: > > I wrote: > > Martin Gräßlin wrote: > >> For packagers it should not matter at all. This is the most common > >> situation for distribution. And in the release of e.g. Plasma they have > >> to handle this for hundreds of updated

Re: CI Requirements - Lessons Not Learnt?

On 2017 M01 6, Fri 22:39:22 CET Ben Cooksley wrote: > See my notes above re. why tying this to the dependency freeze date is > a bad idea and won't really work. > > Given that we potentially have to take into account Qt version bumps > and base system rebuilds - i'll give a timeline of 1 month's

Re: CI Requirements - Lessons Not Learnt?

On 2017 M01 5, Thu 16:11:43 CET Kevin Kofler wrote: > Ben Cooksley wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 10:28 PM, Martin Gräßlin wrote: > >> It should be rather obvious that we don't introduce new dependencies > >> because we like to. There is a very important software reason to it. > >> That's the

Re: What's kde-core-devel for?

On 2016 M12 19, Mon 22:48:29 CET Albert Astals Cid wrote: ... > Please let's try to stay focused on topic. > > Cheers, > Albert > > P.S: took me like 4 minutes > > PHP- https://cgit.kde.org/websites/capacity.git/ > Java - https://cgit.kde.org/kdeconnect-android.git/ > Python -

Re: What's kde-core-devel for?

On 2016 M12 19, Mon 10:24:29 CET Jan Kundrát wrote: > KDE has expanded over the last few years to include projects which are not > based on kdelibs or kf5 (or even Qt). I have heard that several times. Which are those beside Wiki2Learn ? Alex

Re: [kde-community] Please participate in our survey for input on KDE's Mission

Hi Thomas, On Thursday 16 June 2016 12:02:48 Thomas Pfeiffer wrote: > Dear fellow KDE contributors, > as already hinted at in the article about KDE's Vision [1], the next step in > setting our path into the future is defining KDE's Mission statement. Right > after our Vision was published, a

How to commit to kruler ?

Hi, it seems to me that kruler is basically unmaintained, e.g. the patch for bug https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=317436 hasn't been applied since April 2013. So, I'd like to fix that now. How is the procedure for kruler ? Do I need to post this to Phabricator for review first ? (I don't

Re: Question about goal of Windows/Mac frameworks

On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 13:08:46 Dominik Haumann wrote: > On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Christoph Cullmann wrote: > > I think that is more or less what we had in the past with the "kdewin" > > installer, that is like the cygwin installer pulling in all stuff you >

Re: Question about goal of Windows/Mac frameworks

On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 22:48:52 Christoph Cullmann wrote: > Hi, > > > On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 22:12:00 Christoph Cullmann wrote: > > > > ... > > > >> And the big benefit: One can install my alpha crashy something quality > >> Kate > >> > >> bundle with its Qt something version

Re: Question about goal of Windows/Mac frameworks

On Wednesday, October 21, 2015 22:12:00 Christoph Cullmann wrote: ... > And the big benefit: One can install my alpha crashy something quality Kate > bundle with its Qt something version and some imaginary Krita bundle that > is installed in parallel will NOT be borked! are you more or less

Re: Question about goal of Windows/Mac frameworks

On Tuesday, October 20, 2015 20:23:00 Christoph Cullmann wrote: > Hi, > > > Christoph. > > > > I have had similar goals for a while, but haven't reached the point > > that I was having much success yet in that regard. One thing to keep > > in mind when developing installers, Qt Installer

Re: State of Audio CD support in KDE

On Friday, October 02, 2015 04:46:08 Boudhayan Gupta wrote: > On 2 October 2015 at 01:19, Albert Astals Cid wrote: > > I'd miss the ripping habilities of kio-audiocd personally, maybe we can > > merge it with kaudiocreator and make them share code? > > Yeah, let's make

Re: State of Audio CD support in KDE

On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 05:33:20 Boudhayan Gupta wrote: > Hi Albert (and others), > > On 30 September 2015 at 04:09, Albert Astals Cid wrote: > >> In terms of support for Audio CDs in KDE, > >> > >> * K3B can write them. > >> * Phonon the API can play them, with some

Re: Naming scheme for Qt5/KF5-based libraries outside of KF5

On Sunday, September 27, 2015 17:21:04 Sune Vuorela wrote: > On 2015-09-27, Boudhayan Gupta wrote: > > What I propose is that all libraries which want to manage their own > > release cycles and their own namespaces, be moved to Extragear Libs > > and release from there. All the

Re: Versioning of Frameworks

On Sunday, May 10, 2015 15:39:02 David Faure wrote: On Sunday 10 May 2015 12:36:53 Christian Mollekopf wrote: * I'd consider Qt to be a lower level library. Qt mostly provides fundamentals just like libc or the STL, and it's therefore okay for me to just work with what I have available.

Re: Versioning of Frameworks

On Friday, May 08, 2015 10:32:22 Christian Mollekopf wrote: On Tue, May 5, 2015, at 05:38 PM, Martin Gräßlin wrote: ... The versioning would be a complete mess: each framework having a different version number, some doing bug fix releases, some don't. ...that complete mess is just actual

Re: Versioning of Frameworks

On Tuesday, May 05, 2015 11:33:03 Christian Mollekopf wrote: Hey David, Sorry for the late response. On Wed, Apr 29, 2015, at 08:34 PM, David Faure wrote: On Tuesday 28 April 2015 12:17:00 Christian Mollekopf wrote: Our dependency tree is now indeed reduced, but if we want to update a

Re: Distros and QtWebEngine

On Monday, April 20, 2015 22:54:26 Thomas Lübking wrote: On Montag, 20. April 2015 22:31:24 CEST, Jeremy Whiting wrote: Even simple applications may want to use a webview for stuff. Kanagram at one point had a QtWebkit Web view just to show the wikipedia entry of the current word. Ouch,

Re: Another proposal for modernization of our infrastructure

On Saturday, January 31, 2015 21:11:19 Eike Hein wrote: On 01/31/2015 08:57 PM, Alexander Neundorf wrote: hmm, looking back at our switch to git, I don't consider our standards for documentation of the developer workflow as very high unfortunately. :-/ Considering I wrote the majority

Re: Another proposal for modernization of our infrastructure

On Saturday, January 31, 2015 20:52:44 Eike Hein wrote: On 01/31/2015 08:37 PM, Christoph Feck wrote: Excuse me, but if KDE developers will have to follow equivalent steps as described at http://qt-project.org/wiki/Setting-up-Gerrit to contribute, then I predict another big loss of

Re: Another proposal for modernization of our infrastructure

On Saturday, January 31, 2015 22:52:22 Andreas Pakulat wrote: Hi, just a short note (don't want this to become a complete subthread distracting from the actual proposal-discussion) On Sat, Jan 31, 2015 at 9:38 PM, Alexander Neundorf neund...@kde.org wrote: that KDE still couldn't

Re: Changes to our Git infrastructure

On Wednesday, January 07, 2015 08:03:06 Martin Gräßlin wrote: On Tuesday 06 January 2015 12:48:41 Jan Kundrát wrote: On Tuesday, 6 January 2015 07:40:01 CEST, Ian Wadham wrote: ... This has a risk of splitting the discussion about a patch into multiple independent streams where people will

Re: Changes to our Git infrastructure

On Monday, January 05, 2015 23:53:02 Boudewijn Rempt wrote: I'm just trying to make clear that reviewboard is a crappy tool inciting people to write crappy reviews that drive people away. Apart from any other nonsense about cultural differences (the standard cop-out from Dutchmen and Germans

Re: Changes to our Git infrastructure

On Monday, January 05, 2015 16:15:09 Ian Wadham wrote: ... I wonder also how many people have just tiptoed quietly away from the KDE Community rather than speak out about frustrations they may have been feeling. Where *did* all those people go in the last few years? And why? I didn't really

Re: Triggering rebuild after changing a *.json file

On Sunday, November 23, 2014 23:37:45 Kevin Funk wrote: On Sunday 23 November 2014 17:54:21 Milian Wolff wrote: On Sunday 23 November 2014 10:39:02 Andreas Pakulat wrote: Hi, On Sun, Nov 23, 2014 at 4:36 AM, Milian Wolff m...@milianw.de wrote: Hey all, in my quest for

Re: KF 5.3.0 changelog

Hi, On Monday, October 06, 2014 23:14:33 David Faure wrote: Dear workspace and application developers, In case you're not reading kde-announce, here's the list of changes in KF 5.3.0, just released. I also read

Re: KF 5.3.0 changelog

On Tuesday, October 07, 2014 21:47:07 Albert Astals Cid wrote: El Dimarts, 7 d'octubre de 2014, a les 21:40:41, Alexander Neundorf va escriure: Hi, On Monday, October 06, 2014 23:14:33 David Faure wrote: Dear workspace and application developers, In case you're not reading kde

Re: KF 5.3.0 changelog

On Tuesday, October 07, 2014 22:32:43 Alexander Neundorf wrote: On Tuesday, October 07, 2014 21:47:07 Albert Astals Cid wrote: El Dimarts, 7 d'octubre de 2014, a les 21:40:41, Alexander Neundorf va escriure: Hi, On Monday, October 06, 2014 23:14:33 David Faure wrote: Dear

Re: Using Gerrit for code review in KDE

On Tuesday, September 09, 2014 20:02:55 Aaron J. Seigo wrote: On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 18.49:24 Kevin Ottens wrote: As it stands with plasma-framework in particular, there is now a difference in workflow depending on what *part* of plasma one is working on (framework or

Re: AndroidToolchain.cmake in ECM

On Thursday, July 10, 2014 22:23:09 Albert Astals Cid wrote: El Dijous, 3 de juliol de 2014, a les 02:04:31, Aleix Pol va escriure: Hi, As you might have seen on my blog post [1], I've been working on Android support for kde. Part of this effort resulted in a cmake toolchain file we can

Re: KDE Frameworks Release Cycle

On Thursday, May 08, 2014 22:08:06 David Faure wrote: [Taking k-c-d out, too much cross-posting] On Monday 05 May 2014 21:54:42 Alexander Neundorf wrote: If we have more than 50 libraries, do all of them need a full new release every month ? Not doing that leads to 1) a huge mess

Re: KDE Frameworks Release Cycle

On Sunday, May 04, 2014 16:27:44 Luigi Toscano wrote: Kevin Ottens ha scritto: So, we had a team discussion here with Albert, Aleix, Alex, Alex, Aurélien, David, Rohan and myself. We juggled with several options, trying to address the following constraints: * We don't have many

Re: KDE Frameworks Release Cycle

On Sunday, May 04, 2014 16:27:44 Luigi Toscano wrote: Kevin Ottens ha scritto: So, we had a team discussion here with Albert, Aleix, Alex, Alex, Aurélien, David, Rohan and myself. We juggled with several options, trying to address the following constraints: * We don't have many

Re: Co-installability

On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 21:00:57 Christoph Feck wrote: I cannot remember we had these issues with the KDE3-KDE4 transition. Actually I think we had the same issues. Vaing said that, especially now with frameworks part of the plan is to make it easy to use just some libraries e.g. in an

Re: Review Request 114904: Remove KDE4 magic from _SET_FANCY in KDEInstallDirs.cmake

where or who it was. - Alexander Neundorf On Jan. 7, 2014, 9:18 p.m., Alex Merry wrote: --- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/114904

Re: KDE Frameworks: Moving toward 5.0 final and Governance

On Monday 06 January 2014, Kevin Ottens wrote: Hello all, Now that TP1 is almost out of the door, it is time to move toward the final release and put in place the governance of KDE Frameworks. It is a very large and multi-faceted product, so we will need people with longer term commitment

Re: substitution for KDE4_ADD_APP_ICON cmake macro

On Sunday 29 December 2013, David Faure wrote: On Friday 20 December 2013 14:59:45 Michal Humpula wrote: Hi there, I was wondering if there is a recommended migration path from KDE4_ADD_APP_ICON cmake makro. This stuff is indeed missing on

Re: [kdesrc-build] /: Add kate to kdesrc-build's kf5 file.

On Wednesday 01 January 2014, David Faure wrote: Git commit f878d229011a8fe673329c44382bd8a43644e595 by David Faure. Committed on 01/01/2014 at 10:00. Pushed by dfaure into branch 'master'. Add kate to kdesrc-build's kf5 file. Try to split up the file internally into 3 sections:

Re: pkg-config files

On Thursday 26 December 2013, Alex Merry wrote: How much do we care about users of frameworks who don't use CMake? Do we want to provide pkg-config files? How easy is it to do so? (My personal answers would be: enough to put in a little effort, but not a huge one; yes, if it's easy; there

Re: Nepomuk in 4.13 and beyond

On Thursday 12 December 2013, Ignacio Serantes wrote: Welcome Baloo, New suggestions about development direction to avoid some problems related to Nepomuk: 1) Baloo must work as a service to share information with other users and minimize resources consumption. With Nepomuk a login is

Re: Nepomuk in 4.13 and beyond

On Thursday 12 December 2013, Ignacio Serantes wrote: Welcome Baloo, New suggestions about development direction to avoid some problems related to Nepomuk: 1) Baloo must work as a service to share information with other users and minimize resources consumption. With Nepomuk a login is

Re: Less time for KDE... :-)

On Saturday 23 November 2013, Alexander Neundorf wrote: Hi, for very happy personal reasons (since Tuesday, named David :-) ) I'll have significantly less time for KDE in the future. Still I'll stick around and try my best. Alex P.S. no, it is not because of dfaure ;-) Thanks for all

Re: KMountPoint::probablySlow and cifs mount points

On Monday 25 November 2013, Aurélien Gâteau wrote: Le lundi 25 novembre 2013 13:54:38 Mark Gaiser a écrit : On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 10:45 AM, Aurélien Gâteau agat...@kde.org wrote: Le dimanche 24 novembre 2013 19:42:25 Mark Gaiser a écrit : ... What should be done is detecting is the

Less time for KDE... :-)

Hi, for very happy personal reasons (since Tuesday, named David :-) ) I'll have significantly less time for KDE in the future. Still I'll stick around and try my best. Alex P.S. no, it is not because of dfaure ;-)

Re: Review Request 113805: Do not change the build types available with cmake

On Nov. 12, 2013, 7:24 p.m., Alexander Neundorf wrote: IMO the patch as it is is not good. Several things: 1) This file, is not mandatory at all with KDE frameworks. You can build applications using KDE frameworks libraries without it. You (the developer of the application) simply

Re: Review Request 113805: Do not change the build types available with cmake

On Nov. 12, 2013, 7:24 p.m., Alexander Neundorf wrote: IMO the patch as it is is not good. Several things: 1) This file, is not mandatory at all with KDE frameworks. You can build applications using KDE frameworks libraries without it. You (the developer of the application) simply

Re: Review Request 113805: Do not change the build types available with cmake

and the CMAKE_BUILD_TYPE CACHE property accordingly, i.e. both still list DebugFull, Profile and Coverage as available build types. - Alexander Neundorf On Nov. 11, 2013, 10:16 p.m., Sune Vuorela wrote: --- This is an automatically generated e-mail

Re: FindKDE4Internal.cmake clang c++11 -fdelayed-template-parsing

On Friday 15 November 2013, Milian Wolff wrote: On Tuesday 22 October 2013 10:17:02 Raphael Kubo da Costa wrote: Milian Wolff m...@milianw.de writes: Hey Raphael! Thank you for working on clang support in FindKDE4Internal.cmake. Since recently though I have build issues with

Re: Review Request 113805: Do not change the build types available with cmake

into the cache, and afterwards the user should be able to change them as he wants. - Alexander Neundorf On Nov. 11, 2013, 10:16 p.m., Sune Vuorela wrote: --- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http

Re: Review Request 113805: Do not change the build types available with cmake

On Nov. 12, 2013, 12:02 a.m., Aleix Pol Gonzalez wrote: Maybe I've missed something, but I would like to have it explained somehow. Why is it bad to define such values? How will g++ calls compare? Nicolás Alvarez wrote: In normal CMake, -DCMAKE_BUILD_TYPE=Debug builds without

Re: Getting ecm files from the ECM package

On Monday 11 November 2013, Aaron J. Seigo wrote: On Sunday, November 3, 2013 20:51:57 Alexander Neundorf wrote: I wanted to release ECM as fast as possible, since this was one of the main points I got from the platform meeting in Randa in June 2011: people want to be able to use cmake

Re: Having a Tier 0 for cmake and git submodules

On Monday 11 November 2013, Ben Cooksley wrote: On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 10:48 PM, David Faure fa...@kde.org wrote: On Monday 11 November 2013 01:06:33 Michael Pyne wrote: On Sun, November 10, 2013 20:11:07 David Faure wrote: On Sunday 10 November 2013 13:44:09 Michael Pyne wrote: I

Re: Having a Tier 0 for cmake and git submodules

On Sunday 10 November 2013, Kevin Ottens wrote: Hello, Since there's been several times discussions about having a kind of Tier 0 for building our frameworks containing what is right now in ECM kde-modules directory, but the idea was never really on the table because of the extra dependency

Re: Review Request 113805: Do not change the build types available with cmake

On Nov. 12, 2013, 7:24 p.m., Alexander Neundorf wrote: IMO the patch as it is is not good. Several things: 1) This file, is not mandatory at all with KDE frameworks. You can build applications using KDE frameworks libraries without it. You (the developer of the application) simply

Re: Getting ecm files from the ECM package

On Monday 11 November 2013, Aaron J. Seigo wrote: ... in my mind this allows: * an immediate release of ecm * allows KDE to back it rather than have ecm distanced from KDE * this gives ecm a needed “reference customer” * this gives KDE a first step into the “we’re a community

Re: Review Request 113805: Do not change the build types available with cmake

On Nov. 12, 2013, 7:24 p.m., Alexander Neundorf wrote: IMO the patch as it is is not good. Several things: 1) This file, is not mandatory at all with KDE frameworks. You can build applications using KDE frameworks libraries without it. You (the developer of the application) simply

Re: Review Request 113805: Do not change the build types available with cmake

On Nov. 12, 2013, 7:24 p.m., Alexander Neundorf wrote: IMO the patch as it is is not good. Several things: 1) This file, is not mandatory at all with KDE frameworks. You can build applications using KDE frameworks libraries without it. You (the developer of the application) simply

Re: Having a Tier 0 for cmake and git submodules

On Sunday 10 November 2013, Kevin Ottens wrote: Hello, Since there's been several times discussions about having a kind of Tier 0 for building our frameworks containing what is right now in ECM kde-modules directory, but the idea was never really on the table because of the extra dependency

Re: Getting ecm files from the ECM package

On Tuesday 12 November 2013, Kevin Ottens wrote: On Tuesday 12 November 2013 20:04:38 Sune Vuorela wrote: On 2013-11-11, Aaron J. Seigo ase...@kde.org wrote: would that work for everyone? I don't think it solves the actual hard point: Where should the final home for the stuff in

Re: Getting ecm files from the ECM package

On Sunday 10 November 2013, David Faure wrote: On Sunday 03 November 2013 14:05:32 Alexander Neundorf wrote: To build karchive itself, they would need cmake + tier0-kf5 + ECM Which is exactly what I want to avoid. You wrote To build software using karchive with cmake, they still need

Re: Getting ecm files from the ECM package

On Sunday 10 November 2013, Alexander Neundorf wrote: On Sunday 10 November 2013, David Faure wrote: On Sunday 03 November 2013 14:05:32 Alexander Neundorf wrote: To build karchive itself, they would need cmake + tier0-kf5 + ECM Which is exactly what I want to avoid. You wrote

Re: Getting ecm files from the ECM package

On Sunday 10 November 2013, Kevin Ottens wrote: On Sunday 10 November 2013 16:27:06 Alexander Neundorf wrote: On Sunday 10 November 2013, Alexander Neundorf wrote: On Sunday 10 November 2013, David Faure wrote: On Sunday 03 November 2013 14:05:32 Alexander Neundorf wrote: To build

Re: Having a Tier 0 for cmake and git submodules

On Sunday 10 November 2013, David Faure wrote: On Sunday 10 November 2013 17:57:00 Kevin Ottens wrote: Now back to the submodules sha-1 update... The only thing I see to easily overcome that for our developers, is to have a hook, which would update the submodules for all the frameworks

Re: Getting ecm files from the ECM package

On Saturday 02 November 2013, Luca Beltrame wrote: Rex Dieter wrote: I can vouche for fedora/redhat that the buildsystem does not have internet access. Likewise, the OBS for openSUSE does not have net access during building. as I said, it is trivial and IMO mandatory to have that

Re: Getting ecm files from the ECM package

On Friday 01 November 2013, Sune Vuorela wrote: On 2013-11-01, Alexander Neundorf neund...@kde.org wrote: Anyway, attached is a quick experiment, which adds the 3 KDE*.cmake files= from=20 extra-cmake-modules/ to kf5umbrella/, by that turning it into tier0/, wit= h the=20

Re: Getting ecm files from the ECM package

On Saturday 02 November 2013, Stephen Kelly wrote: Alexander Neundorf wrote: In case we decide to go this way (i.e. the my ideal view plus optional downloading), and we should hear Stephens opinion on that, My opinion: 1) The current situation with ECM and KF5 is just fine. do you

Re: Getting ecm files from the ECM package

On Sunday 03 November 2013, Stephen Kelly wrote: Alexander Neundorf wrote: e.g. keeping code like always, unconditional, hardcoded searching for QtCore 'hardcoded' doesn't have any meaning in this context. The code you are talking about is neither 'always', nor 'unconditional'. come

Re: Getting ecm files from the ECM package

On Sunday 03 November 2013, Kevin Ottens wrote: On Sunday 03 November 2013 14:05:32 Alexander Neundorf wrote: ... To build software using an installed karchive, they don't need anything but a compiler. To build software using karchive with cmake, they still need only cmake. To build

Re: Getting ecm files from the ECM package

On Sunday 03 November 2013, Sune Vuorela wrote: On 2013-11-03, Alexander Neundorf neund...@kde.org wrote: This code unconditionally searches for QtCore (and sets a target property where I'm not sure how many people here can understand what's going on). It is hopefully a temporary hack

Re: Getting ecm files from the ECM package

On Friday 01 November 2013, Mirko Boehm wrote: On 11/01/2013 01:37 PM, Kevin Ottens wrote: if a package foo uses ecm (or that non existing tier0 cmake package) itself, this does not mean that another package which uses foo, also needs ecm (or that tier0 package) at buildtime.

Re: Getting ecm files from the ECM package

On Friday 01 November 2013, Mirko Boehm wrote: On 11/01/2013 01:53 PM, Sune Vuorela wrote: So far we chose the have it in cmake/ecm route. If we had what Mirko = refers=20 to, then that'd open the door to another solution. And it would open the first door towards alienating linux

Re: Getting ecm files from the ECM package

On Friday 01 November 2013, Treeve Jelbert wrote: On Friday 01 November 2013 15:46:30 Nicolás Alvarez wrote: ... Maven is a disgusting monstrosity used by the Java crowd where backwards compatibility rarely exists, and the approach to make things not break is to make packages depend on

Re: Getting ecm files from the ECM package

On Friday 01 November 2013, Alexander Neundorf wrote: ... If that option was enabled when installing kf5umbrella, kf5umbrella will load that embedded ECM when asked for ECM. In this quick hack attached here find_package(KF5Umbrella) unconditionally loads KDECMakeSettings.cmake. The version

Re: Getting ecm files from the ECM package

On Friday 01 November 2013, Michael Pyne wrote: On Fri, November 1, 2013 20:06:43 Alexander Neundorf wrote: Anyway, attached is a quick experiment, which adds the 3 KDE*.cmake files from extra-cmake-modules/ to kf5umbrella/, by that turning it into tier0/, with the optional ability

Re: Getting ecm files from the ECM package

On Thursday 31 October 2013, David Faure wrote: On Wednesday 30 October 2013 21:19:43 Alexander Neundorf wrote: On Wednesday 30 October 2013, Stephen Kelly wrote: Hello, Soon I will be replacing code like find_package(KF5 REQUIRED CMake Compiler InstallDirs

Re: Getting ecm files from the ECM package

On Thursday 31 October 2013, Stephen Kelly wrote: Alexander Neundorf wrote: find_package(KF5 ... COMPONENTS karchive solid kcompletion) call in their CMakeLists.txt and get the same results. And if this works for tier3 libs, why not just do the same in tier2 and also in tier1

Re: Getting ecm files from the ECM package

On Wednesday 30 October 2013, Stephen Kelly wrote: Hello, Soon I will be replacing code like find_package(KF5 REQUIRED CMake Compiler InstallDirs) with include(KDEInstallDirs) include(KDECMakeSettings) include(KDECompilerSettings) As I've said before, it makes no sense that

Re: Review Request 113483: Copy KDE4 macro to install all icons in the current source dir

On Tuesday 29 October 2013, Stephen Kelly wrote: Kevin Ottens wrote: Ship it! Looks fine to me and is aligned with prior discussions. Note that it is named ECM_foo, but it contains hardcoded KDE icon theme names. Good point. As it is, IMO for being ECM, it needs way more

Re: cyclic dependency kinit - kservice

On Friday 25 October 2013, Kevin Ottens wrote: On Friday 25 October 2013 11:14:19 David Narvaez wrote: On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Kevin Ottens er...@kde.org wrote: On Monday 21 October 2013 17:01:44 Treeve Jelbert wrote: kinit needs kservice and installs KInitMacros.cmake which

Re: Review Request 113406: Add a macro to automatically generate forward headers

and in the cmake_parse_arguments() call. - Alexander Neundorf On Oct. 26, 2013, 9:35 a.m., Aleix Pol Gonzalez wrote: --- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/113406

Re: Review Request 113373: Enable C++11 support by default.

On Oct. 21, 2013, 8:06 p.m., Stephen Kelly wrote: As far as I know, only threadweaver and karchive will be released in December. The rest of the frameworks won't be released until summer. By summer, CMake 3.0.0 will most likely be out. Volker Krause wrote: while the CMake 3

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >